Agrees with us that health has a much stronger track record than other areas

Agrees with us that more measurement/evaluation is needed

Generally negative on the way we identified "priority interventions." On our sources:

Millions Saved (set of 20 success stories, discussed at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/givewell/message/25) - says it purposefully "cherry-picked" success stories (this was its explicit aim) but thinks it did a generally good job finding the ones with good evidence for impact

Poverty Action Lab and related (randomized controlled trials) - believes randomized controlled trials are good to test general theories of human behavior, but not for identifying promising programs since they only demonstrate (at most) that a program worked in a particular place at a particular time. Contrasts with view of Poverty Action Lab that these studies can identify promising programs.

Very negative on Copenhagen Consensus - thinks cost-effectiveness analysis is only useful for identifying enormous differences (gives the example of antiretroviral therapy, far less cost-effective than other options). (For the record we agree with this approach to using cost-effectiveness analysis, but still use Copenhagen Consensus because a) it identifies interventions that are believed to be "in the range" of the most cost-effective; b) it represents a consensus of a large number of experts doing an explicitly comparative study.)

Suggests that we focus on interventions that "just work" - contrasts vaccinations (you can see it happening and be confident that the child is vaccinated) with "community development" (vaguer goal). (We've gone back and forth on using a similar concept to designate additional "priority interventions" - see http://blog.givewell.net/?p=278)

My note: because of the specific way we're using "priority programs" in our process (to flag charities/programs for further investigation), we're trying to err on the side of including more rather than fewer in our list of priority interventions

Says that "mechanical evaluation" (i.e., formal evaluation) is important and has its merits, but he would like to see a process that makes more use of person-to-person trust, which he sees as important. Says the only charities he would personally get behind, currently, are small projects he's been able to see in person.

Generally negative on megacharities such as Save the Children and CARE (his examples) - doesn't like where they stood on the food aid debate (see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/world/africa/16food.html - note that CARE specifically was on the "right" side of this debate), says many are essentially contractors for USAID, which he has a low opinion of. Also specifically negative on UNICEF or "anything that starts with the letters UN."

Wary of global health partnerships and other large "vertical" health programs - made a general statement that they are putting money and expertise into the "Top of an enormous funnel and they all have to
go through the same choke point at the bottom of the funnel which is the local
labor force." Says "I would look in health for someone who's
creative not only about targeting a disease and finding the right low-cost
technical solutions and assembling all the medicines and the needles but is
also thinking about how can they creatively get this implemented on the ground"

Phil Steinmeyer

The link doesn t work for me. Actually - I m not sure if its the link or an issue downloading mp3s in my browser. In any case, the weird symbols in your link

Message 2 of 4
, May 15, 2009

0 Attachment

The link doesn't work for me. Actually - I'm not sure if its the link or an
issue downloading mp3s in my browser.

In any case, the weird symbols in your link title (%20), are, I think, some
sort of odd substitution for spaces. I would try renaming the file using
underscores, which is more conventional and less problematic for filenames

Highlights:
Agrees with us that health has a much stronger track record than other areas
Agrees with us that more measurement/evaluation is needed
Generally negative on the way we identified "priority interventions." On
our sources:
Millions Saved (set of 20 success stories, discussed at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/givewell/message/25) - says it purposefully
"cherry-picked" success stories (this was its explicit aim) but thinks it
did a generally good job finding the ones with good evidence for impact
Poverty Action Lab and related (randomized controlled trials) - believes
randomized controlled trials are good to test general theories of human
behavior, but not for identifying promising programs since they only
demonstrate (at most) that a program worked in a particular place at a
particular time. Contrasts with view of Poverty Action Lab that these
studies can identify promising programs.
Very negative on Copenhagen Consensus - thinks cost-effectiveness analysis
is only useful for identifying enormous differences (gives the example of
antiretroviral therapy, far less cost-effective than other options). (For
the record we agree with this approach to using cost-effectiveness analysis,
but still use Copenhagen Consensus because a) it identifies interventions
that are believed to be "in the range" of the most cost-effective; b) it
represents a consensus of a large number of experts doing an explicitly
comparative study.)
Suggests that we focus on interventions that "just work" - contrasts
vaccinations (you can see it happening and be confident that the child is
vaccinated) with "community development" (vaguer goal). (We've gone back
and forth on using a similar concept to designate additional "priority
interventions" - see http://blog.givewell.net/?p=278)
My note: because of the specific way we're using "priority programs" in our
process (to flag charities/programs for further investigation), we're trying
to err on the side of including more rather than fewer in our list of
priority interventions
Says that "mechanical evaluation" (i.e., formal evaluation) is important and
has its merits, but he would like to see a process that makes more use of
person-to-person trust, which he sees as important. Says the only charities
he would personally get behind, currently, are small projects he's been able
to see in person.
Generally negative on megacharities such as Save the Children and CARE (his
examples) - doesn't like where they stood on the food aid debate (see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/world/africa/16food.html - note that CARE
specifically was on the "right" side of this debate), says many are
essentially contractors for USAID, which he has a low opinion of. Also
specifically negative on UNICEF or "anything that starts with the letters
UN."
Wary of global health partnerships and other large "vertical" health
programs - made a general statement that they are putting money and
expertise into the "Top of an enormous funnel and they all have to go
through the same choke point at the bottom of the funnel which is the local
labor force." Says "I would look in health for someone who's creative not
only about targeting a disease and finding the right low-cost technical
solutions and assembling all the medicines and the needles but is also
thinking about how can they creatively get this implemented on the ground"

Holden Karnofsky

Good suggestion, thanks. New link: http://givewell.net/files/ResearchInterviews/William_Easterly_2009_05_12_trimmed.mp3 On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Phil

The link doesn't work for me. Actually - I'm not sure if its the link or an
issue downloading mp3s in my browser.

In any case, the weird symbols in your link title (%20), are, I think, some
sort of odd substitution for spaces. I would try renaming the file using
underscores, which is more conventional and less problematic for filenames

Highlights:
Agrees with us that health has a much stronger track record than other areas
Agrees with us that more measurement/evaluation is needed
Generally negative on the way we identified "priority interventions." On
our sources:
Millions Saved (set of 20 success stories, discussed at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/givewell/message/25) - says it purposefully
"cherry-picked" success stories (this was its explicit aim) but thinks it
did a generally good job finding the ones with good evidence for impact
Poverty Action Lab and related (randomized controlled trials) - believes
randomized controlled trials are good to test general theories of human
behavior, but not for identifying promising programs since they only
demonstrate (at most) that a program worked in a particular place at a
particular time. Contrasts with view of Poverty Action Lab that these
studies can identify promising programs.
Very negative on Copenhagen Consensus - thinks cost-effectiveness analysis
is only useful for identifying enormous differences (gives the example of
antiretroviral therapy, far less cost-effective than other options). (For
the record we agree with this approach to using cost-effectiveness analysis,
but still use Copenhagen Consensus because a) it identifies interventions
that are believed to be "in the range" of the most cost-effective; b) it
represents a consensus of a large number of experts doing an explicitly
comparative study.)
Suggests that we focus on interventions that "just work" - contrasts
vaccinations (you can see it happening and be confident that the child is
vaccinated) with "community development" (vaguer goal). (We've gone back
and forth on using a similar concept to designate additional "priority
interventions" - see http://blog.givewell.net/?p=278)
My note: because of the specific way we're using "priority programs" in our
process (to flag charities/programs for further investigation), we're trying
to err on the side of including more rather than fewer in our list of
priority interventions
Says that "mechanical evaluation" (i.e., formal evaluation) is important and
has its merits, but he would like to see a process that makes more use of
person-to-person trust, which he sees as important. Says the only charities
he would personally get behind, currently, are small projects he's been able
to see in person.
Generally negative on megacharities such as Save the Children and CARE (his
examples) - doesn't like where they stood on the food aid debate (see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/world/africa/16food.html - note that CARE
specifically was on the "right" side of this debate), says many are
essentially contractors for USAID, which he has a low opinion of. Also
specifically negative on UNICEF or "anything that starts with the letters
UN."
Wary of global health partnerships and other large "vertical" health
programs - made a general statement that they are putting money and
expertise into the "Top of an enormous funnel and they all have to go
through the same choke point at the bottom of the funnel which is the local
labor force." Says "I would look in health for someone who's creative not
only about targeting a disease and finding the right low-cost technical
solutions and assembling all the medicines and the needles but is also
thinking about how can they creatively get this implemented on the ground"

Lee Crawfurd (MoFEP)

Interesting discussion, I especially liked the idea about some kind of person-to-person referral network. I have no idea how this would work in practice but it

Message 4 of 4
, May 20, 2009

0 Attachment

Interesting discussion, I especially liked the idea about some kind of person-to-person referral network. I have no idea how this would work in practice but it might be interesting to think about engaging with some kind of new media facebook-type application or something similar by which you could potentially create direct interaction with local NGOs on the ground, and/or somehow aggregate individual recommendations.

The link doesn't work for me. Actually - I'm not sure if its the link or an
issue downloading mp3s in my browser.

In any case, the weird symbols in your link title (%20), are, I think, some
sort of odd substitution for spaces. I would try renaming the file using
underscores, which is more conventional and less problematic for filenames

Highlights:
Agrees with us that health has a much stronger track record than other areas
Agrees with us that more measurement/evaluation is needed
Generally negative on the way we identified "priority interventions." On
our sources:
Millions Saved (set of 20 success stories, discussed at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/givewell/message/25) - says it purposefully
"cherry-picked" success stories (this was its explicit aim) but thinks it
did a generally good job finding the ones with good evidence for impact
Poverty Action Lab and related (randomized controlled trials) - believes
randomized controlled trials are good to test general theories of human
behavior, but not for identifying promising programs since they only
demonstrate (at most) that a program worked in a particular place at a
particular time. Contrasts with view of Poverty Action Lab that these
studies can identify promising programs.
Very negative on Copenhagen Consensus - thinks cost-effectiveness analysis
is only useful for identifying enormous differences (gives the example of
antiretroviral therapy, far less cost-effective than other options). (For
the record we agree with this approach to using cost-effectiveness analysis,
but still use Copenhagen Consensus because a) it identifies interventions
that are believed to be "in the range" of the most cost-effective; b) it
represents a consensus of a large number of experts doing an explicitly
comparative study.)
Suggests that we focus on interventions that "just work" - contrasts
vaccinations (you can see it happening and be confident that the child is
vaccinated) with "community development" (vaguer goal). (We've gone back
and forth on using a similar concept to designate additional "priority
interventions" - see http://blog.givewell.net/?p=278)
My note: because of the specific way we're using "priority programs" in our
process (to flag charities/programs for further investigation), we're trying
to err on the side of including more rather than fewer in our list of
priority interventions
Says that "mechanical evaluation" (i.e., formal evaluation) is important and
has its merits, but he would like to see a process that makes more use of
person-to-person trust, which he sees as important. Says the only charities
he would personally get behind, currently, are small projects he's been able
to see in person.
Generally negative on megacharities such as Save the Children and CARE (his
examples) - doesn't like where they stood on the food aid debate (see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/world/africa/16food.html - note that CARE
specifically was on the "right" side of this debate), says many are
essentially contractors for USAID, which he has a low opinion of. Also
specifically negative on UNICEF or "anything that starts with the letters
UN."
Wary of global health partnerships and other large "vertical" health
programs - made a general statement that they are putting money and
expertise into the "Top of an enormous funnel and they all have to go
through the same choke point at the bottom of the funnel which is the local
labor force." Says "I would look in health for someone who's creative not
only about targeting a disease and finding the right low-cost technical
solutions and assembling all the medicines and the needles but is also
thinking about how can they creatively get this implemented on the ground"

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.